Remember the Maine

There's nothing surprising about the American military's troubles in Iraq. At least, there aren't any surprises if you know American history. \nThe best historical parallel with today's situation in Iraq, however, isn't with a familiar example like the Vietnam War. Rather, it's with the U.S. annexation and conquest of the Philippine Islands between 1898 and 1902. \nToday, U.S. forces are in Baghdad trying to maintain civil order and build a democratic regime. A hundred years ago, American troops were in the Philippines for the same reasons. \nWe went to war with Iraq based on evidence that Saddam was building nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. That evidence now seems pretty flimsy. \nWe went to war with Spain based on evidence that the Spanish had destroyed the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor. Subsequent investigations have ruled that the Maine's explosion was an accident. \nEven the insults are the same: The side in favor of U.S. action calls its opponents un-American, who in turn call their adversaries imperialists. \nBut the most important similarity between our war in Iraq and our war in the Philippines is this: In both instances, supporters of the White House saw American military action as liberating a nation. And in both instances, the nation we were liberating saw American action rather differently. \nAmerica's experience in the Philippines was disheartening and dishonorable. We bought the Philippines from Spain for $20 million after the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898. \nWe bought a nation that was already in a state of rebellion. The Filipinos had been fighting their Spanish rulers before the Americans arrived. They quickly learned that the Americans, like the Spanish, had no plans to give the islands freedom. And so they fought the Americans, too.\nThe war was mystifying to many Americans at home. Weren't we there to bring democracy to the islands? Why couldn't the Filipinos understand that we were really on their side?\nIn the Philippines, the war wasn't so mystifying.\nTwo hundred-thousand people, mainly Filipino civilians, died in the "pacification" of the archipelago. The war was brutal. General Jacob F. Smith was court-martialed for what today we call "war crimes." Among other things, Smith told his troops to fire on anyone bearing arms -- even those only 10 years old.\nPrivate soldiers adopted the same attitude as General Smith. As Mark Twain noted in an essay entitled "To the Person Sitting in Darkness," one soldier wrote to his mother: "We never left one [Filipino] alive. If one was wounded, we would run our bayonets through him."\nImperial rule doesn't lift up conquered nations. It never has. It never will. But it does succeed in making brutes of the conquerors.\nThe parallel between the Philippines and Iraq isn't exact; no historical analogy is. The Spanish rule of the islands wasn't as brutal as the Hussein regime. No American policymaker supposed that Madrid was developing WMD. The only European governments who thought the American war in the archipelago was wrong were those who wanted the Philippines for themselves. \nMaybe our experience in Iraq will turn out better than our forebearers' in the Philippines. \nI certainly hope so. \nBut there's one more parallel that's too tempting to pass up. \nBefore the Iraq war, Pentagon officials pledged that U.S. troops would only have to stay a few months. Now Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, says we should plan on staying for several years. \nThe occupation of the Philippines was supposed to take a few months too. \nWe stayed for nearly 50 years.